You can have my guns when I can have your booze.

[Exquisition]

Are the police going to be there should my house ever be broken into? They'll be there.....to fill out paperwork and pick up my corpse, but certainly cannot defend me.

hmmm. Do householders in other, stable western democracies face a similar questions do you think? And are you saying in the states there's significant risk of death from burglars?

How come?

 

[njlauren]

54million?
Hell, just as well - else the land of the free would have a much worse welfare problem than it already does!

The book freakanomics talks about the cost of abortion, or rather the cost if we didn't have abortion, and they lay out a pretty good case that the anti abortion crowd would be bitching and moaning royally if they had to face the consequences of those 54 million abortions, the cost of jails, policing, social welfare costs like welfare, food stamps and the like. The thing about anti abortion types like our friend here is the sanctity of life only extends to when the kids is born, and like the Tea party types (a large majority of which tend to be 'pro life') it is basically "you are on your own, screw you" once it is born, and they are the same people who demonize the poor, come up with names like "welfare queens' and the like. Most abortions according to the freakanomics guys tend to be young, poor women without the skills and resources to raise a baby properly, and the adoption option the pro life types love is a)ineffective, because many of those aborted were children of racial and ethnic minorities hard to adopt out and b)that cost significant money to get adopted, and often end up as wards of the state.

 

[njlauren]

So there's a massive pool of guns out there that gets recycled from bad guy to dirty cop to bad guy with no 'responsible gun owner' adding to that equation?

Give me a break.

Private sellers can sell guns without a background check performed on any purchaser at gun shows. Bad guys are buying them from "responsible gun owners" too happy to look the other way to make a buck. Only licensed gun dealers are required by Federal law to perform a background check.

Ergo, a large part of the problem stems from "responsible gun owners' themselves. You and yours should get your house in order first.

Islandman-

It is even worse then that, thanks to states down in the hookworm belt, a legal gun owner can buy guns, fill up the trunk of his car from a gun shop, get his dipshit little background check, sign a piece of paper saying he is a good ole boy, and walk away..and drive up 95, to DC or NYC, and dump the guns on the black market and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to him. 75% of the guns on the streets of NYC that are taken in were purchased legally in a small handful of states, and it wasn't at gun shows. If people purchasing guns were required to be licensed to purchase them and keep them, and had the legal responsibility of reporting their status each year, this wouldn't happen, and if the penalties for violating these laws were 20 years in levenworth for the gun shop owner and the buyer of the guns, it would close off a massive pipeline really quickly.

Mike Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC, went after gun shops in Virginia and Georgia whose weapons repeatedly show up on the street in NYC, took them into civil court, and want to know what happened? The redneck legislators indemnified the gun shop owners, i.e shielded them from civil suits like that...cute, right? Tells you where ole johnny reb types are at, and it isn't law and order, it is "I don't give a shit how many people these guns kill, my good ole boys make a lot of money that way'.

There needs to be national standards on all this to stop the insanity that is out there, the NRA in many ways is a terrorist organization, in that they don't promote rational gun ownership., they promote gun owners should have the right to do what they want with guns, and if if is feeding criminals, hey, so be it, bunch of lame ass losers. Put it this way, the NRA fought tooth and nail against banning teflon bullets, whose only purpose is to cut through bullet proof vests and body armor, QED.

 

[njlauren]

hmmm. Do householders in other, stable western democracies face a similar questions do you think? And are you saying in the states there's significant risk of death from burglars?

How come?

This is the fantasy of the gun owning right, that there are criminals at every turn breaking into houses, civilization breaking down, etc...and what statistics show is that gun ownership doesn't seem to deter crime, Dallas, Texas has some of the laxest gun ownership and carry laws in the country, and its crime rate is in the top 5 of the FBI list, whereas cities with strict gun control laws are much lower on the list. More importantly, it is not uncommon for the gun owner to end up shot with his own weapon or by the intruder, as cop friend of mine put it, they think they are tough guys, but when confronted with a guy with a gun, most of them hesitate whereas the bad guy won't flinch. I question the deterrent value because studies of gun ownership versus non gun ownership, when other factors are evened out (for example, comparing areas with similar population/demographics), there is pretty much no statistical correlation to ease of gun use and decreased crime. I have had some NRA types point out that states like Montana and Wyoming are gun friendly, and that their crime rates are low, but they are also states that are rural with ridiculously low population density (I believe both states may have less people then the county I live in in NJ....)

 

[SeaDaddy1]

Yes, you read that correctly. The finger waving anti-gun zealots want our guns because people are getting killed with them.

I own several guns and I am fully prepared to surrender them to said zealots.

When I can have your alcohol.

What am I talking about? Walk this way with me.

It was pointed out in another thread that there are an estimated 300 million legally owned firearms in the US. Now keep the word legally in mind, its very important.

Now from my experience most people who own a firearm own more than one, many collect them. So I doubt there are 300 million "unique" gun owners. So let's say the average gun owner has 4. So 75 million people own guns legally. They have blue cards they have permits they're registered gun owners.

Now lets look at how many deaths occur during the year that resulted in the use of legally owned guns. So gang related shootings, drug related shootings, any shooting involving an illegally owned firearm does not count here. You can;t take guns away from criminals, they will always obtain them. In fact this Lanza animal stole these guns from his mother so its debatable whether or not the guns used in Connecticut were legally owned by the shooter.

Long story short it is a miniscule, an infinitesimal, percentage of legal gun owners who harm others.

Now lets switch gears. The number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drunk drivers is around or even exceeds that of gun related deaths(legal owned) every year. If we want to really get into things we could look at how many of those legal owned gun deaths involved the added factor of alcohol. but lets keep it simple.

Here we are in X-mas party season and next week is New Years. Between 12am-1am on New Years day thousands upon thousands of people will be leaving parties drunk behind the wheel. Their cars are now a 2-3 ton weapon with a "fully loaded" driver behind the wheel. Deaths have and will occur.

Just like in CT many young children will be killed and hurt by drunk driving as well as abused by drunken parents,

Therefore I want your booze. I want all the finger waving zealots and our mealy mouthed President to call for your booze. Hand it over people and now.

Whoa, wait, what's that? That's not fair?

Okay, I'll bite, why is it not fair?

Because it is only a very small percentage of idiots who get drunk and do these things, who kill and ruin peoples lives(and take their own as well) those people shouldn't represent all drinkers!

I am a responsible drinker! Why should I lose my scotch and Budweiser because a handful of dummies can't handle their drinks.

You can't so this! a handful of people should not effect everyone.

But sorry, we're taking your booze away. So what happened last time booze was taken away during prohibition?

there was more booze flowing than when it was legal! The mobsters and criminals were raking it in!

so what happens when you abolish guns? People will still get them except now the only people that will own them will be people who probably would use them for ill effect leaving law abiding citizens defenseless in their own homes.

What's that? we only want to take away semi automatic weapons? Okay then I'll only take way your beer.

But wait, now someone just walked into a theater and killed 8 people with 2 .38's. Now we want all your guns.

Okay now hand over the hard liquor.

Bottom line this is ridiculous. This man was a sick individual. I cannot fathom what kind of animal can empty a magazine into a child. But he is an aberration and nothing short of evil. People like that will find ways to get their hands on these weapons, criminals always do.

And it is a horrible tragedy, but as always it is now not about these children,. but a bunch of finger pointing fools using this to promote their platform.

whether you own a gun or do not, this is about our rights. Anytime a right is taken away it is a bad thing. You may not want a gun today, but what about down the line,? And of all presidents throughout history this is not the one, I want removing any of our rights.

In closing I also want to add how convenient this tragedy is. Trust me I am not saying this was a set up in anyway, but the president and congress are thrilled we're all rightfully upset and focusing on this because that way....

Us all going over the fiscal cliff is taking a back seat. Once again the media is taking Obama off the hook.

Now, enough of that. There will be people coming to your doors wearing Madd and Sadd sweat shirts.

All of them have lost loved ones to drunk drivers.

so kindly hand over your booze to them as you should not be allowed to have any.

Guess the eggnog will be a little bland this year.

My guns never killed a human being. But if a human wants to take them, then they can be the first to experience the wrath of a person who has long used the guns for a more practical means.

 

[julybaby04]

One has to wonder..... lecturing about abortion and murder on an adult forum.
Which religion is that again?

Interesting....other's opinions are just that...opinions

....mine seem to be lecturing

Thought we were all open to discuss how we see fit......maybe only those who see fit to agree ....not those who have a differing view.....

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I own several guns and I am fully prepared to surrender them to said zealots.

When I can have your alcohol.

Ok. I have thought about it and I am ready. What are the terms of the exchange? It is a good deal.

 

[Blue_Duck]

I'm with the OP. I will consider making changes to the Second Amendment when we all agree to make changes to the rest of the Bill of Rights…..starting with the First Amendment. There should be no quarter. If we are no longer willing to live by the principles in which this country was founded, then so be it. It deeply saddens me that there are so many people who are willing compromise those founding principles.

 

[islandman]

My guns never killed a human being. But if a human wants to take them, then they can be the first to experience the wrath of a person who has long used the guns for a more practical means.

Another "responsible gun owner" threatening violence.

Good luck passing that psych test.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Interesting....other's opinions are just that...opinions

....mine seem to be lecturing

Thought we were all open to discuss how we see fit......maybe only those who see fit to agree ....not those who have a differing view.....

You have every right to discuss it. And we have every right to embarass you for your ignorance, especially when it comes to things like abortion=murder and feeding poor mothers=welfare entitlement society. Your right to ignorance stops when it starts effecting me.

 

[bg23]

Does that go the other way round too?

Cannot be for gun freedom and prohibit the choice of abortion. Can't allow all guns to be sold and then shut the idea of marriage down to only include opposite sex.

Right?

Address this please, JulyBaby.

Since you support the idea of not restricting sale of guns, does that mean you also support gay marriage and abortion?

 

[blobfish]

Address this please, JulyBaby.

Since you support the idea of not restricting sale of guns, does that mean you also support gay marriage and abortion?

Don't expect a straight answer. A Leviticus quote, maybe, but definitely not a straight answer.

 

[warrior queen]

Interesting....other's opinions are just that...opinions

....mine seem to be lecturing

Thought we were all open to discuss how we see fit......maybe only those who see fit to agree ....not those who have a differing view.....

If you were capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion, without resorting to pulpit-style preaching, then you might actually get a conversation everyone can work with.
But you're not.

 

[richard_daily]

The problem is, you have people writing laws about firearms that are as clueless about them as the majority of the people on this board are.

So an assault weapon is only something that's select fire?

If that's the case, 99.99% of the things that most people consider "assault weapons", aren't.

what does a bayonet mount have to do with it?

Clueless fuckstick. This covers it pretty well.

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition.
(a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, “assault weapon” means:
(1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the other following specified semiautomatic firearms:
Algimec Agmi
Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol
Armalite AR-180
Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89
Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol
Holmes MP-83
Auto-Ordnance Thompson type
MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type
Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type
Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion
Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1
Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000
Beretta AR-70
Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only
Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol
Scarab Skorpion
Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P
SIG 57 AMT and 500 series
Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88
Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol
Colt AR-15 and Sporter
Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3
Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2
Sterline MK-6 and MK-7
Ecom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45
Steyr AUG
Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC
Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns
FAMAS MAS 223
USAS-12
Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT
UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol
Federal XC-900 and XC-450
Weaver Arms Nighthawk
Franchi SPAS-12 and Law-12
Wilkinson “Linda” Pistol
Galil AR and ARM

(2) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in possession or under the control of the same person;

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at lease two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A bayonet mount;
(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) A grenade launcher; or
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
(i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
(iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
(iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or
(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and
(iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
(b) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, the term “assault weapon” does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable.

 

[eyer]

I'm with the OP. I will consider making changes to the Second Amendment when we all agree to make changes to the rest of the Bill of Rights…..starting with the First Amendment. There should be no quarter. If we are no longer willing to live by the principles in which this country was founded, then so be it. It deeply saddens me that there are so many people who are willing compromise those founding principles.

Welcome to wake-up time...

...prepare for The Constitutional War that lies straight-ahead.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Fuck it. Fair trade. I give my booze, you give your guns. I shoot you. I take your booze. Problem fucking solved.

 

[Blue_Duck]

Welcome to wake-up time...

...prepare for The Constitutional War that lies straight-ahead.

Sadly I think you are correct. Based some comments made in similar threads, I am surprised at the number of folks willing to make concessions to the Bill of Rights. I think we have a tough and difficult fight ahead of us.

 

[julybaby04]

You have every right to discuss it. And we have every right to embarass you for your ignorance, especially when it comes to things like abortion=murder and feeding poor mothers=welfare entitlement society. Your right to ignorance stops when it starts effecting me.

Nothing I do affects you.......as the same way that you think anything you say or do affects or embarrasses me.

Abortion is murder...... and thankfully those women who had those 54 + million abortions since 1973 had mother's who chose not to kill them.

.....at least they gave them a chance at life.

 

[julybaby04]

If you were capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion, without resorting to pulpit-style preaching, then you might actually get a conversation everyone can work with.
But you're not.

I am open to discussion.....but you have your views and I have mine, hence the word discussion.

Those who have opposing views to mine to not want to discuss that. The only words shared are those of insults....that is not a discussion.

Only those who share the same views and are open to everything goes in this world are welcome here. That is fine. I will continue to be a still small voice with a differing opinion.

Have a great day!

 

[warrior queen]

Nothing I do affects you.......as the same way that you think anything you say or do affects or embarrasses me.

Abortion is murder...... and thankfully those women who had those 54 + million abortions since 1973 had mother's who chose not to kill them.

.....at least they gave them a chance at life.

Now, if you had said I believe that abortion is murder.... , then you would be discussing the topic.
By stating it the way you did, you make the assumption that your opinion is the only RIGHT one..... and that's lecturing.

You're welcome for the lesson.

 

[islandman]

Sadly I think you are correct. Based some comments made in similar threads, I am surprised at the number of folks willing to make concessions to the Bill of Rights. I think we have a tough and difficult fight ahead of us.

You know what the #1 change made to the BoR since it was written?

It originally applied to possible encroachment by the federal government only. Today, it also includes possible encroachment by state governments.

So, if you're against changes to the BoR, feel free to give back that particular freedom. Until such time, don't cry about how the BoR is subject to change.

 

[GrayOldFart]

Just tell me this; if guns are not special, why do you need a constitutional amendment to protect them?

I think most people forget the purpose of the Second Amendment: to arm the populace so that their government would be afraid of them! Oh, sure, that might not be the way it's worded, but that was the intent. The citizens of what was soon to become the US had been prevented in most cases from having firearms by the British ... in an effort to prevent revolution. The founders of this country didn't want an American dictator doing the same thing, so they added the Second Amendment to the constitution so that, in the event of government infringement on the right of the people, the people could rise up and put down who ever -- or is it whom ever? -- it was who was infringing upon their Constitutional Rights.

I am not arguing for or against gun rights or gun control, and I'm certainly not saying everyone should have an automatic assault rifle in their home. I am only pointing out what the Second Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

 

[eyer]

Sadly I think you are correct. Based some comments made in similar threads, I am surprised at the number of folks willing to make concessions to the Bill of Rights. I think we have a tough and difficult fight ahead of us.

The sad fact that this once-great nation had indeed become the United Socialist State of America nuked my reality on December 5, 2005, and for the next two days I experienced a soulful depression I'd never known in my life...

...that Pearl Harbor Day, I sat by a mentor's and WWII bomber flight engineer's grave marker (that also reads, Indianapolis Motor Speedway Hall of Fame), looking across the way at the final resting places of hundreds of Union and Confederacy war dead, knowing each one was his own person and all had as many different reasons for fighting as there are blades of grass atop the ground they eternally occupy.

The thought was then clearly asked of me as if it was spoken from the very ghosts of those dead:

What are you truly willing to fight and die for?

7 years gone by now...

...and the likelihood of a Constitutional War just keeps becoming more real.

As you mentioned, just reading some of the threads and posts on this Board gives practical insight into just how many are celebrating democracy in championing their favored socialist agenda...

...and, who knows? Maybe fate will, indeed, favor their stride this time.

But, I do know one thing for a fact:

Before they ever do get a chance to actually succeed here in America...

...the tree of liberty will definitely be nourished again with plenty of blood of patriots and tyrants.

 

[eyer]

The founders of this country didn't want an American dictator doing the same thing, so they added the Second Amendment to the constitution so that, in the event of government infringement on the right of the people, the people could rise up and put down who ever -- or is it whom ever? -- it was who was infringing upon their Constitutional Rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

No...

...as it has been factually pointed-out numerous times on this board:

An individual's right to bear arms is inherently above the jurisdiction of all government - that was decided at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and that is why no mention of the unalienable right to bear arms was mentioned in a document whose expressed purpose was to specifically assign, define, and limit the duties and powers of the new federal government.

The 2nd acknowledges that inherent right to bear arms in its prologue...

...and then intentionally issues the command that that right shall not be infringed.

That is why - legally - a 28th Amendment is needed to repeal the 2nd before any serious debate on disarming Americans can even begin...

...but the socialists - including almost all of them on this Board - will not champion the straight-out repeal of the 2nd because that will automatically then expose their true anti-individual, anti-American intent.

Their regulation/ban/because we care so much, damm!t! charade will eventually be exposed, anyway...

...but the longer they can veil their true intent with their disingenuousness, it just means one more day they have to enjoy before War actually begins.

They are, after all, socialists and not communists...

...thus, they prefer to fuel their disingenuousness with democracy, rather than fight for what they believe in like those who will be opposing them.

 

[GrayOldFart]

Okay, so ... your reply confuses me. You initially say "no" to what I said, then appear to confirm what I said, then go off on a rant about needing gun control, which is something I specifically said I was neither supporting or opposing. First, let's look at this:

No...

...as it has been factually pointed-out numerous times on this board:

Factually? Really? On Literotica? Haaa, that's a kick. Ninety nine percent of what I see written here is anything but factual, and I'm not just talking about the fantasy role play stuff.

Continuing...

An individual's right to bear arms is inherently above the jurisdiction of all government - that was decided at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and that is why no mention of the unalienable right to bear arms was mentioned in a document whose expressed purpose was to specifically assign, define, and limit the duties and powers of the new federal government.

The 2nd acknowledges that inherent right to bear arms in its prologue...

...and then intentionally issues the command that that right shall not be infringed.

Isn't that what I said?

That is why - legally - a 28th Amendment is needed to repeal the 2nd before any serious debate on disarming Americans can even begin...

With the infringements on rights that came down during the Bush years and continue into the Obama years, do you really think we should be disarming our citizenry? If anything, I think we should be stocking up on guns and ammo and teaching our children how to make IEDs that will stop US Army tanks.

...but the socialists - including almost all of them on this Board - will not champion the straight-out repeal of the 2nd because that will automatically then expose their true anti-individual, anti-American intent.

Their regulation/ban/because we care so much, damm!t! charade will eventually be exposed, anyway...

...but the longer they can veil their true intent with their disingenuousness, it just means one more day they have to enjoy before War actually begins.

They are, after all, socialists and not communists...

...thus, they prefer to fuel their disingenuousness with democracy, rather than fight for what they believe in like those who will be opposing them.

I ... I don't even know how to respond to this gibberish...

What the hell are you trying to to say...? Socialists? Communists? Wow...